It’s interesting that folks such as yourself take what he said as some kind of “gotcha” moment that will nullify his legal standing. Hardly. I’m sure he could have done an alternative route, and it would have taken longer. However, given the importance and urgency of the matter, he wanted to go this route. Let’s not forget, Congress has had quite some time to come together to make it happen.

The President has the ability to send troops to their deaths and you’re concerned because he’s building a wall?

I’m honestly so desensitized to the Trump outrage BS it now falls on deaf ears.

way to completely ignore the valid question/analogy.

I'm sure no one noticed...

__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln

So are (we) arguing about the ethics of this, or the cost? Maybe if we establish that we can adjudicate the two.

The recent action is ... I suppose you could say ethics, but before that a question of legal - and even treasonous behavior.

The wall itself is a question of whether the pros outweigh the cons - is it cost effective- is it a solution? What exactly is the problem you’re trying to address - as DIY has first tried pointing out the issue is thee cost of immigrants (which is questionable) and then tried saying it’s to prevent the trafficking and drugs - which the majority are coming through legal ports of entry.

__________________
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. ~ Calvin (and Hobbes)

So are (we) arguing about the ethics of this, or the cost? Maybe if we establish that we can adjudicate the two.

I'm at the point where I couldn't care less about the cost. Money is being spent one way or the other. If it gets allocated for a wall, so be it. I don't think it will be effective in any capacity near what it's described as. A part of me actually wants it to happen just so that when the "problems" don't go away, and we still have illegal immigrants in this country, they are forced to actually consider action that MIGHT help. (probably not though)

But with regards to the action the President has taken, I am 100% opposed based on the concept and the precedent it's set.

Definitely couldn't be considered Treasonous by any stretch of the definition. What remains to be seen is if it's deemed unconstitutional based on the separation of powers. The challenge for the SCOTUS will be that there exists the option for congress to terminate the declaration but Trump has the ability to veto, so it has to be veto proof which is a bigger challenge for congress after they'd already said "no" to the funding.

The question to be determined is if congress denied funds and a president uses the emergencies act to secure that funding which then gives him funding with veto powers, is that going to violate the constitutional provisions for the legislative body via article I section 8.

There hasn't been a power grab like this so it needs to be determined. Based on the way the law was intended it sure does feel like this is in direct conflict with the intention of Article I section 8.

If the SCOTUS rules it's constitutional, we'll have just completely changed the dynamic of the executive and legislative powers with this new precedent.

If they do, the wall will seem like such a small spat in comparison to what is likely to come.

Come to think of it, I almost wonder if there's not some 4d chess here going on with the democrats in which case they WANTED to push Trump this direction so that a precedent was set with a SCOTUS ruling they would be able to use in the future.

If the SCOTUS rules it's constitutional, we'll have just completely changed the dynamic of the executive and legislative powers with this new precedent.

Unfortunately, it shouldn't be this way. It's the Congressional body which is meant to act as a check on this very situation and the Senate is no longer a check on Trump. They're simply an extension of his arm. Pawns that sway whichever way he blows his hot air.

If the GOP had any backbone, they'd support impeachment proceedings on any number of fronts, not the least of which is this act, which is the President overriding Congressional appropriation authority. The separation of powers written into our Constitution is crumbling under Trump.

And the hypocrisy of every republican who vows to uphold the Constitution when it comes to the 2A, but ignores, almost literally, every other part is not lost on me.

Edit: To respond to this part directly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooby24

Come to think of it, I almost wonder if there's not some 4d chess here going on with the democrats in which case they WANTED to push Trump this direction so that a precedent was set with a SCOTUS ruling they would be able to use in the future.

Not so they can use it in the future. Maybe to bolster support for impeachment. The problem is that it's highly dependent upon who controls Congress. A democrat would get impeached in record time if the GOP controlled both chambers for doing this same thing.

Definitely couldn't be considered Treasonous by any stretch of the definition. What remains to be seen is if it's deemed unconstitutional based on the separation of powers. The challenge for the SCOTUS will be that there exists the option for congress to terminate the declaration but Trump has the ability to veto, so it has to be veto proof which is a bigger challenge for congress after they'd already said "no" to the funding.

The question to be determined is if congress denied funds and a president uses the emergencies act to secure that funding which then gives him funding with veto powers, is that going to violate the constitutional provisions for the legislative body via article I section 8.

There hasn't been a power grab like this so it needs to be determined. Based on the way the law was intended it sure does feel like this is in direct conflict with the intention of Article I section 8.

If the SCOTUS rules it's constitutional, we'll have just completely changed the dynamic of the executive and legislative powers with this new precedent.

If they do, the wall will seem like such a small spat in comparison to what is likely to come.

Come to think of it, I almost wonder if there's not some 4d chess here going on with the democrats in which case they WANTED to push Trump this direction so that a precedent was set with a SCOTUS ruling they would be able to use in the future.

fter declaring a national emergency on Friday in a desperate attempt to fund a U.S.-Mexico border, President Trump did what any president does after a national crisis: He golfed all weekend at his club in West Palm, Florida (where membership fees start at $250,000 a pop). And if this week’s news is any indication, he’ll have a lot of reason to golf over the coming days.
Sixteen states (for now), including California, New York, and New Jersey, are suing the president over his misuse of the declaration of a national emergency, which would divert several billion dollars to the construction of the wall. But is it even possible to sue a president while he’s still in office? Better yet, can a private citizen, like you or I, sue the president? Turns out, it’s a resounding yes (though it won’t always be that simple).Is it possible to sue a president while he’s in office?

Yes, sort of. But first, there’s a ton of legal jargon involved (as well as unchartered territory), so let’s provide some context:

For one, a president cannot be sued for things done in a “personal capacity” while he’s in office (this is referred to as absolute immunity). If you do plan to sue the president while he’s in office, you would technically sue the United States, according to Vice. However, you can sue a president for any actions that occurred before that president took office.
Recently, things have gotten even murkier with Trump in office. Many state courts have argued that though Trump is immune from federal lawsuits, he isn’t immune from those on the state level (which explains the case in question).
Putting that aside, in order to sue the president, you’d have to prove legal standing. In other words, you have to show proof that you’ve been harmed or injured by an act of the president. Unfortunately, this is where cases tend to fall apart.Does this mean *I* can sue the president?

Yes! But it will be a long, winding road ahead. A private citizen can absolutely sue a president for things done prior to their position in office.

In order to sue the president personally in a federal court, you can’t live in the same state as any other plaintiff and your damages would have to exceed $75,000, according to Vice News. Anything less and you’d sue on the state level. To reiterate, the problem becomes that many cases are dismissed and you’d have to prove legal standing.Has a president ever been sued before?

Yes—many, in fact. Presidents and lawsuits seem to go hand in hand (which is only mildly terrifying).
First, there are two landmark lawsuits which have laid out the groundwork for the president’s immunity.
In 1982, a former Air Force employee attempted to sue former President Richard Nixon for an unlawful firing (an alleged retaliation for giving testimony about costs and difficulties while working on a particular project). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nixon, forever solidifying presidential immunity.

Later, in 1997, this immunity was tested during the sexual harassment case by Paula Jones brought against President Bill Clinton. Clinton argued the case would become a “burdensome distraction” to his duties as president. The Supreme Court, however, ruled against him, leading to his impeachment and stipulating that “immunity” isn’t granted to a president for actions taken before his presidency.
How about Trump? Well, in the first few months of his presidency, he was sued 134 times alone—and that number has kept on growing. Here’s a brief list of people and organizations who have sued (or are suing) the president:

If you haven’t figured it out already, it’s tough to sue the president (although not impossible). Most cases are dismissed, or otherwise, delayed infinitely.
It’s also just a big game of unknowns. Given that the circumstances constituting a national emergency are vague, this could only benefit Trump, who’s using the declaration as a last-ditch effort at producing a wall. However, states could very well set a new precedent—if they’re successful in court.
And if you want to personally sue the president, well, you’ll have to have a lot of time and money on your hands and one hell of a case.

it was and is a law because it was DULY PASSED BY CONGRESS and signed by the President. at least pretend to understand what's being discussed before you start making analogies.

here I'll do it for you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mild83

I support a Russian stooge so clearly I was upset when the then-President tried to punish Russians for invading Crimea but it happened anyway. I had no choice

its still really stupid analogy because it didn't involve the President doing so for political reasons because Congress wouldn't give him his way but at least its factual and makes sense as somewhat analogous.

__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln

For the fourth time in five months, the number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has broken records, border enforcement authorities said Tuesday, warning that government facilities are full and agents are overwhelmed.
More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, more than double the levels from the same period last year and approaching the largest numbers seen in any February in the last 12 years.
“The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point,” Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters in announcing the new data.

Diverted by new restrictions at many of the leading ports of entry, migrant families continue to arrive in ever-larger groups in remote parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. At least 70 such groups of 100 or more people have turned themselves in at Border Patrol stations that typically are staffed by only a handful of agents, often hours away from civilization. By comparison, only 13 such groups arrived in the last fiscal year, and two in the year before.

More than 90 percent of the new arrivals were from Guatemala, officials said, with a significant change in the dynamics of the migration: While Central American migrants once took weeks to journey through Mexico to the United States, many Guatemalan families are now boarding buses and reaching the southwest border in as little as four to seven days “on a very consistent basis,” Mr. McAleenan said.
Mr. McAleenan also declared sweeping changes to the agency’s procedures for guaranteeing adequate medical care for migrants — an overhaul brought on by the deaths of two migrant children in the agency’s custody in December. The measures, which include comprehensive health screenings for all migrant children and a new processing center in El Paso that will help provide better shelter and medical care for migrant families, are an attempt to fix years of health care inadequacies that have left many at risk.
[Read: Border Patrol Facilities Put Detainees With Medical Conditions at Risk]
“These solutions are temporary and this situation is not sustainable,” he said. “This is clearly both a border security and a humanitarian crisis.”
The high number of families crossing the border suggest that President Trump’s policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers are not having their intended effect. Up to 2,000 migrants who traveled in a caravan from Central America last year and faced lengthy delays in Tijuana appeared to have given up their cause as of last month after being discouraged by months of delays at the border. But the families following behind them seem only to have adjusted their routes rather than turn back. Indeed, they are traveling in even larger numbers than before.
The throngs of new families are also affecting communities on the American side of the border. In El Paso, for example, where most of the families are being processed after submitting their asylum applications, a volunteer network that temporarily houses the migrants after they are released from custody has had to expand to 20 facilities, compared with only three during the same period last year. Migrants are now being housed in churches, a converted nursing home and about 125 hotel rooms that are being paid for with donations.

“We had never seen these kinds of numbers,” said Ruben Garcia, the director of the organization, called Annunciation House. He said that during one week in February, immigration authorities had released more than 3,600 migrants to his organization, the highest number in any single week since the group’s founding in 1978.
For the most part, Mr. Garcia said that his staff and volunteer workers had been able to keep up with the surge, often making frantic calls to churches to request access to more space for housing families on short notice. But sometimes their best efforts were upended, he said, including on one day last week, when the authorities dropped off 150 more migrants than originally planned.
“We just didn’t have the space,” Mr. Garcia said.
Border Patrol officials said that the biggest “pull factors” encouraging migrant families to make their way to the United States were federal laws and court settlements that prohibit the authorities from deporting Central Americans without lengthy processing, and from detaining migrant families for more than 20 days, after which they must be released into the country while they await immigration court proceedings. Others at the agency pointed to severe poverty and food insecurity in the Western highlands of Guatemala, where many of the families are from, as a primary motivation.
As of March 3, 237,327 migrants had been apprehended along the southwest border since the fiscal year began in October, a 97 percent increase from the previous year, according to government figures.
The larger numbers and the surge into more remote areas of the border have drawn new attention to longstanding problems with medical services provided by Customs and Border Protection. Migrant families, in particular, tend to arrive in urgent need of medical attention, the agency said, which has strained resources and drawn agents away from their law enforcement duties.
Last year, the agency referred 12,000 border crossers to emergency rooms for care, each one requiring an agent to wait with them at the hospital and ensure they were immediately returned to federal custody upon release. The rates of hospital referrals are increasing, the agency said, with about 145 agents per day currently acting as hospital escorts. Meanwhile, cocaine seizures for the current fiscal year have already exceeded the previous one, and methamphetamine seizures have also increased, according to the agency, a situation that also is demanding staff resources.
Historically, many migrant families have been released from custody almost immediately upon crossing the border because the capacity of facilities outfitted to house parents with children is much smaller than the number of people traveling as families. Immigration authorities have enough space to detain about 3,000 members of migrant families; more than 28,000 crossed the border in January.
Recently, though, the agency has also begun releasing single adults into the country because of backups that now extend to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities across the country, where adult detainees are traditionally held until their immigration court cases are resolved.
More than 50,000 adults are currently detained in ICE custody, the highest number ever, which has in turn begun to tax government lawyers, who are tasked with prosecuting their deportation cases, according to agency officials.
Yet the latest projections, based on intelligence gathered in Central America as well as patterns from previous years, suggest that the numbers of families traveling to the United States may continue to increase in the coming months.
Volunteer groups are trying to prepare for even greater numbers, and some of them are having to get creative.
In downtown Tucson, a 50-room monastery, occupied by Benedictine nuns for 80 years, has been offered up by a local land developer as a temporary shelter to house migrants until July. Newly arrived migrants are checking in at the rate of about 100 a day, replacing families who secure bus tickets to join friends or relatives elsewhere in the country after staying one or two nights.
“I can’t imagine how we would manage without the monastery,” said Teresa Cavendish, director of operations at Catholic Community Services, which is operating the shelter.

WASHINGTON — Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, on Wednesday implored Congress to confront what she called a “humanitarian catastrophe” on the southern border by supporting President Trump’s call for a border wall and changing laws to crack down on asylum-seekers and illegal border-crossers.
In her first congressional appearance since Democrats took control of the House, Ms. Nielsen was defiant in the face of criticism of the administration for its treatment of migrant families at the border, especially its decision last summer to separate children from their parents.
“Our capacity is already severely strained, but these increases will overwhelm the system entirely,” Ms. Nielsen told members of the House Homeland Security Committee. “This is not a manufactured crisis. This is truly an emergency.”

Democrats demanded that Ms. Nielsen address the chaos that followed the family separation decision, the deaths of migrant children in federal custody and Mr. Trump’s claim of a national emergency at the border that he has said requires construction of a border wall.
Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the committee’s chairman, said he hoped Ms. Nielsen would not simply parrot Mr. Trump’s assertions about how a border wall would prevent a crisis.
The secretary can choose whether to be complicit in this administration’s misinformation campaign,” Mr. Thompson said, “or she can correct the record.”
In her prepared remarks, Ms. Nielsen echoed Mr. Trump’s repeated claims that the United States is eager to welcome immigrants who arrive legally, and granted asylum and refugee status to more individuals in 2017 than any other country in the world.
Democrats challenged Ms. Nielsen on the administration’s efforts to dramatically slow down the entry of legal immigrants. Critics say that the surge of families trying to enter the United States illegally is partly the result of the Trump administration’s decisions to slow the processing of asylum claims at legal ports of entry, forcing families to come into the United States elsewhere on the border

Ms. Nielsen applauded the president’s demand for a wall. She also urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow the indefinite detention of families and to more easily turn back claims of asylum by migrants from Central America, who have been arriving in record numbers at the southern border.
Asked by Mr. Thompson if migrant families have been separated, and adults deported back to their country without their children, Ms. Nielsen said yes. She added that those relatives are given the option to return to their country with their children.
“To the best of my knowledge, every parent was afforded that option,” Ms. Nielsen said.
Representative Kathleen Rice, Democrat of New York, pressed Ms. Nielsen on whether she had supported the policy.
“We do have the legal authority to do it, as I understand,” Ms. Nielsen said. She added that she discussed the zero tolerance policy with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions before he announced it.
“Were you aware the zero tolerance policy would lead to minors being separated from their parents?” Ms. Rice asked.
“As a consequence for a parent going to jail, we in this country do not take the children to jail,” Ms. Nielsen responded.
“I take that as a yes,” Ms. Rice said.

Representative Lauren Underwood, Democrat of Illinois and the committee’s vice chair, asked Ms. Nielsen whether she knew of the impact family separation would have on the health of children.
“Tearing kids and their parents apart is immoral, ma’am,” said Ms. Underwood, a trained nurse. “It’s un-American and it’s just plain wrong.”
The practice, part of a “zero tolerance” immigration policy that drew swift condemnation after it was publicly announced last spring, quickly became a symbol of the president’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
Around the time, Ms. Nielsen repeatedly denied that the Department of Homeland Security had a policy of routinely separating migrant children from their parents at the border despite mounting evidence that thousands of families had been broken apart. During a news conference in June at the White House, she said she was offended by accusations that she would authorize separating children from their parents to send a message of deterrence.

But the department continued to separate families until Mr. Trump, facing enormous public pressure, signed an executive order meant to end the policy.
Customs and Border Protection data released on Tuesday showed that more than 76,000 migrant families crossed the southwestern border without authorization in February. That is more than double the levels from the same period last year.
For much of her tenure, Ms. Nielsen has been the subject of Mr. Trump’s ire over illegal immigration and border security.
Throughout much of 2018, Mr. Trump berated her privately for not doing enough to stop illegal immigration and accelerate construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. The president grew repeatedly angry with Ms. Nielsen for telling him that his ideas to stop immigration would be illegal or improper.
In May, Ms. Nielsen considered resigning after Mr. Trump vented at her for nearly a half-hour during a cabinet meeting at the White House. He accused her of failing to secure the border and yelled that the United States needed to “shut it down.” Ms. Nielsen decided to stay on, but told colleagues she did not know whether she could effectively lead the department.
By year’s end, reports were rampant that Mr. Trump wanted to fire Ms. Nielsen, but her credibility with the president has since improved. During the government’s 35-day shutdown over funding for the president’s border wall, Ms. Nielsen was a fierce advocate for the wall.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has complimented Ms. Nielsen’s work publicly. And on Wednesday morning, Ms. Nielsen made clear she would not stray very far from the president’s anti-immigrant rhetoric.
“Today’s migrant flows have created a humanitarian catastrophe,” Ms. Nielsen said in her opening remarks, citing the violence migrants face on their way to the border.
“Smugglers and traffickers are forcing migrants into inhuman conditions, demanding extraordinary sums of money, and putting their lives in danger,” she said. “And vulnerable populations — especially children — are coming into D.H.S. custody sicker than ever before.”

I've been told countless times this week alone that someone known to have lied to Congress is not to be trusted ever again...

Quote:

We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.

so how am I supposed to believe her given that the above has pretty much been shown to be a lie or Elliot Abrams who was convicted of lying to Congress?

__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln

What’s the definition of insanity again? For Donald Trump, irrationality seems to be the art of all deals.

Reuters reported that on Monday, Trump will seek $8.6 billion from Congress to fund border wall construction in his 2020 budget request.

In the last showdown with Congress over wall funding, Trump sought $5.7 billion, despite repeatedly claiming on the 2016 campaign trail that Mexico would pay for it. He didn’t get the money, and the deadlock with lawmakers led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

According to Reuters, Trump’s 2020 request is “more than six times what Congress allocated for border projects in each of the past two fiscal years, and 6 percent more than Trump has corralled by invoking emergency powers this year.”

Asked why Trump would do this instead of maybe reversing tax cuts for billionaires, Kudlow responded, “Why not?”
“If you want to deal with budget deficits, you’ve got rapid growth, which means keep the tax cuts in place. We believe the 3% growth rate of 2018 will continue in 2019 and beyond…I think the other element is always to limit spending, and the president is proposing roughly a 5% across-the-board reduction in domestic spending accounts. It will be a tough budget,” Kudlow said.

The Congressional Budget Office projects real GDP growth in 2019 at 2.3%, down from 3.1% in 2018. After that, it’s projected to slow even further to an average of 1.7% through 2023, according to the CBO.

“So, there’s going to be another budget fight over the wall?” Wallace asked, to which Kudlow responded, “Well, I suppose there will be.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded by saying that Democrats beat Trump once on the issue, and they’ll beat him again if they have to.

In a joint statement with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, Pelosi said, “President Trump hurt millions of Americans and caused widespread chaos when he recklessly shut down the government to try to get his expensive and ineffective wall, which he promised would be paid for by Mexico. Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson.”

Quote:

Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again.

We hope he learned his lesson.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) March 10, 2019

According to The Washington Post, Trump will seek to cut $2.7 trillion in the next 10 years on domestic programs and foreign aid. He also wants to increase military spending from $716 billion to $750 billion next year, the newspaper noted.

The CBO expects the federal budget deficit to exceed $1 trillion each year starting in 2022.

Trump wants to use the $8.6 billion to build or replace 722 miles of border barriers based on a 2017 plan by Customs and Border Protection, which would cost an estimated $18 billion, according to Reuters. About 111 miles of that has either already been built or is underway, the news agency said.

In this year’s budget, Congress appropriated about $1.4 billion for border fencing.

Democrats oppose both more funding for the wall and President Trump’s attempt to backfill funding he is stealing from military construction projects. This ridiculous request, like the rest of the Trump budget, is not even worth the paper it’s written on. https://t.co/X9cImJFdCB
— Nita Lowey (@NitaLowey) March 10, 2019

Washington (CNN)The Senate delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump over his signature agenda issue Thursday when 12 Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration.

The vote was 59-41, an overwhelming vote against the President's executive action.
Lawmakers don't have enough votes, however, to override a certain veto from the President, but passage of the resolution in the Senate after it passed the House last month is nevertheless an embarrassing blow to Trump delivered by his own party over the President's top campaign pledge of a wall at the US-Mexico border.
The 12 Senate Republicans who voted in support of the resolution were: Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mitt Romney of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Mike Lee of Utah.
The setback for the President also comes on the heels of another high-profile break with his administration after the Senate voted just one day earlier to curtail US military support for a Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has created a humanitarian crisis in that country.
Senate Republicans have struggled for weeks over how to vote on the resolution to overturn the national emergency.
The vote forced many to choose between loyalty to a President unafraid to attack members of his party who defy him and an emergency declaration that conservative critics describe as executive overreach and warn could set a precedent used by Democratic presidents to declare emergencies over liberal priorities such as action on climate change.
"Declaring a national emergency to access different funds sets a dangerous new precedent," GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio warned in remarks on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. "It opens the door for future presidents to implement just about any policy they want."
The senator went on to say, "a future President could seize industries ... a future President may well say that climate change is a national emergency and use emergency authorities to implement the Green New Deal," referencing a sweeping progressive policy proposal to tackle global warming.
Portman announced during his remarks that he would support the resolution, but made a point to say -- as have many other Republicans -- that he believes "President Trump is right about the crisis at the border."
Republicans had to take a tough vote on the border declaration after House Democrats pushed for a resolution to terminate the national emergency that the President announced last month in an effort to unlock money for wall construction at the southern border.
The President declared an emergency when it became clear that Congress would not meet his demand for more than $5 billion in border wall funding. The resolution is privileged, which means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could not block it from coming to the floor for a vote.
Enough Republican senators had already stated their support for the resolution ahead of Thursday's vote to guarantee it would pass. But the President continued to publicly pressure Republicans to vote against the resolution in the hours leading up to the vote, framing the vote as a choice between supporting border security or siding with liberal Democrats on immigration.
A number of GOP senators announced ahead of the vote on Thursday that they would vote in favor of the resolution, including Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander and Pat Toomey.
Prior to the day of the vote, GOP Senators Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Thom Tillis had said they planned to vote for the resolution.
In an apparent last-minute reversal, however, Tillis announced just ahead of the vote on Thursday that he would vote against the resolution, despite previously saying he would vote in favor in a Washington Post op-ed.
"Today, I come to the floor to say that I do not intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval," the senator said, adding "The White House has been very gracious and I should say very patient given my initial position in working with us."This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.